Friends Meet

Published:Proletary, No. 18, September 26 (13), 1905.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 9,

      pages253-261.Translated:The Late Abraham Fineberg and Julius KatzerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Duringthe last few days foreign papers, which are very carefully following the
development of the political crisis in Russia, have published a number of
interesting reports on the activities of the Zemstvos and theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague. Here is what they say:

"Aftera two-hour discussion the St. Petersburg Conference of Marshals
of the Nobility arrived at complete agreement with the Minister of the Interior
concerning the elections” to the State Duma (Vossische
Zeitung,[2]September 16). “Reports from all the gubernias and cities of Russia
show that most electors are utterly indifferent to the political rights granted
them” (ibid.).Golovin (Chairman of the Moscow Gubernia Zemstvo
Board) is conducting negotiations with Durnovo (Governor General of Moscow)
concerning permission to hold a Zemstvo Congress. Durnovo told Golovin that he
was in full sympathy with the Zemstvos, but that he had been ordered to exert
every effort to prevent the Congress. Golovin made reference to the Congress of
Professors. Durnovo replied that “this is an altogether different matter,
since the students had to be persuaded to resume their studies at all
events” (Frankfurter Zeitung, September 17). “The Zemstvo
Congress has been authorised to meet in Moscow on the 25th inst.in order to
discuss the electoral programme, provided it keeps. strictly to that subject.”
(The Times, September 18, cable gram from St. Petersburg.)
“M. Golovin today visited the Governor General with reference to the
forthcoming Zemstvo Congress. His Excellency stated that the Congress would be
permitted to assemble, but that ·the programme must be confined to three
points—first, the participation of theZemstvos and towns in the elections to the State Duma; secondly, the
      organisation. of the electoral campaign; and, thirdly, the participation
      of the Zemstvos and towns in the work of assisting in relief work in
      famine-stricken districts.” (Ibid., cablegram from Moscow.)

Friendshave met and come to terms. An agreement has been reached between
Golovin (the leader of the Zemstvo party) and Durnovo. Only infants could fail
to see that the agreement is based on mutual concessions, on the principle ofdo ut des(I give you that you may give me). What the autocracy has
conceded is clear: it has permitted the Congress. What has been conceded by the
Zemstvo party (or is it theOsvobozhdeniyeParty? God alone knows! And
is it worth while finding out?) no one mentions. The bourgeoisie has every
reason to conceal its negotiations with the autocracy. But even if we do not
know the details, the particulars, we are fully aware of the gist of the
concessions made by the bourgeoisie.The bourgeoisie has promised the
autocracy to moderate its revolutionary fervourwhich consisted in
Petrunkevich having been regarded in Court circles as a former
revolutionary....The bourgeoisie has promised a discount in return for a
discount. We do not know how big this discount is. However, we do know that
the “bar gaining price” asked for by the bourgeoisie was twofold:
for the people—a monarchist constitution with two chambers; for the
tsar—the convocation of people’s representatives, nothing more (since the
celebrated Zemstvo delegation did not dare to ask Nicholas II for more). It is
on this double bargaining price that the bourgeoisie has now promised the
autocracy a discount.The bourgeoisie has promised to be dutiful, loyal,
and

			  law-abiding.[1]

Friendsmet and came to an agreement.

Aboutthe same time, other friends began to meet and come to terms. The
St. Petersburg correspondent of theFrankfurter Zeitung, a Bourse paper (September 15), reports that a
secret congress of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague has taken place, evidently
in Moscow. “At this meeting it was decided that theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague should be turned into ademocratic-constitutionalparty; A motion to this effect was tabled by
Zemstvo members belonging to theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague, and was carried
unanimously by the Congress” (or was it a conference?). “Thereupon
forty members of the League were elected to draft and editthe party
programme.This commission is to start work soon.” The question of the
State Duma was discussed. After a lively debate it was decidedto take part
in the elections“on condition, however, that party members elected
participate in the State Duma not in order to concern themselves with current
affairs, but for the purpose of continuing the struggle within the Duma
itself”. In the course of the debates it was pointed out that a widespread
(or far-reaching—weitgehender) boycott is impossible, and only a
boycott of that nature would have any sense. (Is it possible, gentlemen, that no
one cried out at your meeting: “Don’t say ‘I cannot’, say ‘I don’t want
to!’”?—Note by the Editors ofProletary.) However, the meeting
holds that the State Duma is a good arena for the propaganda of democratic
ideas. “A true friend of the people,” according to the minutes of the
meeting, “a friend of freedom, will enter the State Duma only for the
purpose of fighting for a constitutional state.” (RememberS. S.ofOsvobozhdeniye, who explained to all and
sundry that for the
radical intelligentsia extension of suffrage is the focal point, whereas for the
Zemstvos, for the landlords, and capitalists, it is the extension of the rights
of the State Duma.—Editors ofProletary.) “At the same time
the meeting pointed out that the democratic members of the Duma should bear in
mind that in this struggle there must be acomplete break with the existing
government”(the italics are in the original) “and such a break
should not be feared. These decisions of the meeting will, of course, be printed
and circulated.” (The Editors ofProletaryhave so far obtained neither
this leaflet nor any information about it from Russia.) “In view of the
far-reaching influence of theOsvobozhdentsi, as members of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague call themselves, who count among their number
representatives ofthe most diverse strata of society and who are headed by Zemstvo leaders, their
      election campaign among circles of society closest to them and qualified
      to vote acquires great importance. There is no doubt that a strong nucleus
      of theseOsvobozhdentsiwill penetrate into the State Duma and
    constitute its Left wing, as soon as the State Duma turns into a body
    genuinely representative of the people. If these radicals succeed in winning
    the candidates of the moderate Zemstvos and the towns over to their side, a
    constituent assembly may eventually be proclaimed.

"Theparticipation of Russian political parties in the elections is thus
apparently a settled matter, for the Union of Unions has also finally declared
itself in favour of participation. Only the Jewish Bund is campaigning against
the Duma elections, and at big meetings held in various cities ... the workers
in general have taken a categorical standagainstthe State Duma, from
which they are excluded.”

Thatis how the correspondent of a German bourgeois newspaper writes the history
of the Russian revolution. His reports, probably, contain errors of detail, but
by and large they are undoubtedly close to the truth—of course, so far as
facts, not predictions, are concerned.

Whatis the real significance of the facts he describes?

TheRussian bourgeoisie, as we have pointed out hundreds of times, is acting as
intermediary between the tsar and the people, between the government and the
revolution, in a desire to make use of the latter in order to secure power foritselfin its own class interests. Therefore, until it attains power,
it isboundto strive for “friendship” both with the tsar
and with the revolution. And that is what it is doing. The dignitary Golovin is
sent to strike up a friendship with Durnovo. An anonymous scribbler is sent to
strike up a friendship with the “people”, with the revolution. In
the first case friends met and came to terms. In the second case they hold out
their hands, nod their heads in friendly fashion, promise to be true friends of
the people, friends of liberty, swear to take part in the Duma only for the sake
of the struggle and nothing but the struggle, avow that they will make a
complete and finalbreak with the existing government, and hold out even the prospect of a
constituent assembly being proclaimed. They act the radical, dance attendance on
revolutionaries, and make up to them in order to win the title of friends of the
people and of liberty; they are prepared to promise any thing—onthe
off-chance of someone swallowing the bait!

Thebait has been swallowed. The newIskrawith Parvus at its head has
done that. Friends have met and begun negotiations about an
agreement. Cherevanin cries out (inIskra, No. 108): “We must
make theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague members who are entering the Duma give
us a revolutionary pledge.” “We agree, we quite agree,” is the
reply. “We shall proclaim a constituent assembly.” Martov (in the ViennaArbeiter Zeitungtranslated into Russian inProletary,
No. 15) seconds Cherevanin: “Pressure must be brought to bear so that only
resolute advocates of free and democratic representation are elected.”
“Of course, of course,” theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague replies,
“honest to God, we are most resolute people; we are out for a complete
break with the existing government.” “We must remind them that they are in
duty bound to express the interests of the people,” Parvus, our
Ledru-Rollin[3]thunders. “They must be forced to express the
interests of the people.”—“Most assuredly,” theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague replies. “We even have it
recorded in the minutes
that we are true friends of the people, friends of liberty.” “Political
parties must be formed,” Parvus demands. “Done,” theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague replies. “We are already called the
Constitutional-Democratic Party.” “A clear programme is needed,” Parvus
persists. “Why, of course,” theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague replies,
“we have set forty men to write a programme, and are only too glad to do
it ..." “An agreement on Social-Democratic support for theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague must be concluded,” all thenew-Iskracrowd wind up in chorus. TheOsvobozhdeniyeLeague is moved to
tears. Golovin pays a call on Durnovo to tender his congratulations.

Whichof them are the buffoons, and which the dupes? All the mistakes ofIskra’stactics in the Duma question have now led up to a natural and
inevitable finale. The disgraceful part played byIskrain its war
against the idea of an active boycott is now obvious to each and all. Thereis no doubt now as to whobenefitedbyIskra’stactics. The
    idea of an active boycott has been buried by the majority of the monarchist
    bourgeoisie.Iskra’stactics will inevitably be buried by the
    majority of Russian Social-Democrats.

Parvuslet his tongue run away with him to the extent of talking about a formal
agreement with theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague (the “democrats”),
about joint political responsibility binding them and the Social-Democrats, and
about Social-Democratic support for theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague on the
basis of precisely defined conditions and demands— even new-Iskrists will,
probably, repudiate this absurd and disgraceful talk. Parvus, however, has
simply given franker and blunter expression to the idea underlying thenew-Iskraviews. The formal support he proposes is merely the
inevitable consequence of themoralsupport the newIskrahas
all along been giving the monarchist bourgeoisie by condemning an active boycott
of the Duma, by justifying and championing the idea of democrats entering the
Duma, and by playing at parliamentarianism when no parliament whatever
exists. It has been well said: we have no parliament as yet, but we have
parliamentary cretinism galore.

Thefundamental error of the new-Iskrists has come to the fore. They have
constantly turned a blind eye to thetheory of compromise, the
political theory underlying theOsvobozhdeniyetrend, and the truest
and most profound expression of the Russian bourgeoisie’s class stand and class
interests. They have kept harping on only one aspect of the matter—the
conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the autocracy, with complete disregard of
the other aspect— thecompromisebetween the bourgeoisie and the
autocracy, against the people, the proletariat, and the revolution. And yet it
is precisely this second aspect that is coming more and more to the fore
acquiring ever greater and more fundamental importance with each advance of the
Russian revolution, each month of a situation which is so intolerable to
bourgeois adherents of law and order.

Thefundamental error of the new-Iskrists led them to a radically incorrect
appraisal of the ways in which Social- Democracy should take advantage of the
conflicts betweenthe bourgeoisie and the autocracy, and the ways offanningthe flames
of these conflicts by our efforts. Yes, it is our absolute duty to fan the
flames of these conflicts at all times, be it without a Duma, or prior to a
Duma, or in the Duma itself, if it ever meets. But the new-Iskrists do not see
where theproper meansare to be found. Instead of encouraging the
flames by breaking the windows and allowing fresh air—the workers’
uprisings—to rush in, they sweat at making toy bellows and fanning the
revolutionary zeal of theOsvobozhdeniyepeople by presenting them with
farcical demands and conditions.

Indeed,it is our duty to support the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a
revolutionary way. But with us this support has always consisted (remember the
attitude ofZaryaand the oldIskratowardsOsvobozhdeniye), and, as far as revolutionary Social-Democrats are
concerned, will always consist, first and foremost, in ruthlessly exposing and
branding every false step of this “democratic”—save the mark!
— bourgeoisie. If it is at all possible for us to exert influence on the
democratism of the bourgeoisie, that influence will have effect only when all
acts of treachery, all the bourgeoisie’s errors, its unfulfilled promises and
fine words that are belied by events and deeds, are stigmatised on every
occasion when a bourgeois democrat speaks to workers or politically
conscious peasants. Since this bourgeoisie, which only yesterday was proclaiming
from the house-tops that it would boycott the Duma, has today already basely
retract ed its promises, changed its decisions, redrafted its resolutions, and
come to an agreement with the Durnovos about a legal mode of action, we must
withhold moral support of these liars and lackeys of the autocracy, prevent them
from getting away with broken promises and making new ones to the workers (which
will likewise be cast to the wind the moment the Duma becomes a legislative
instead of a consultative body). No, we must brand them and impress upon the
whole of the proletariat that fresh betrayals on the part of these bourgeois
“democrats”, who reconcile the constitution with Trepov, and
Social-Democracy withOsvobozhdeniyepolitics, are inescapable and
inevitable. We must demonstrate and prove to all the workers—using the
instance of the bourgeois betrayal of the people on thequestion of the boycott, as well as other examples—we must demonstrate
      that all these Petrunkeviches and the like are already full-fledged
      Cavaignacs and Thiers.[4]

Letus assume that we shall not cope with the task of frustrating this Duma
before it makes an appearance. Let us assume that the Duma meets. Constitutional
conflicts within it will be inevitable, for the bourgeoisie is certain to aspire
to power. Even then, we must support this aspiration, since the proletariat
also has something to gain from a constitutional system too, because the rule of
the bourgeoisie as a class will clear the ground for our struggle for
socialism. That is all true. But this is just where our radical divergence of
opinion from the newIskrabegins, not ends. This divergence is not on
the question of whether support should be given to bourgeois democrats, but on
the question of the means of giving that support in a revolutionary epoch and of
exerting pressure on them. By justifying their treachery or shutting one’s eyes
to it, by hastening to make deals with them, rushing to play at
parliamentarianism, exacting promises and pledges from them, you achieve only
one thing—theyexert pressure on you, not you on them! We have
lived to see the revolution. The time of mere literary pressure is gone; the
time of parliamentary pressure has not yet arrived. It isonlyan
uprising that can exerciseeffective, not paltry pressure. When civil
war spreads over the whole country, pressure is exercised by armed force, by
giving battle, and then any other attempt to bring pressure to bear amounts to
hollow and wretched phrase-mongering. Nobody has yet ventured to assert that the
period of insurrection has passed in Russia. And since that is so, any
avoidance of the tasks of a rising, any argument against its necessity, any
“watering-down” of our demands to the bourgeois democrats that they
participate in the uprising, means laying down our arms at the feet of the
bourgeoisie, converting the proletariat into an appendage of the
bourgeoisie. Nowhere in the world has the proletariat as yet ever laid down its
arms when a serious struggle has commenced, nor has it ever yet yielded to the
accursed heritage of oppression and exploitation without measuring swords with
the enemy. Such are now our means and hopes of bringing pressure to bear. No one
can foretell the outcome of the struggle. Ifthe proletariat is victorious—it will be the workers and peas ants who
will make the revolution, and not, the Golovins and Struves. If the proletariat
is defeated—the bourgeoisie will obtain new constitutional rewards for
assisting the autocracy in this struggle. Then and only then a new era will be
inaugurated, a new generation will come forward, European history will repeat
itself, parliamentarianism will for a time become the real touchstone of all
politics.

Ifyou want to exercise pressure now, then prepare for insurrection, preach it,
and organise it. Only an uprising holds out the possibility that the Duma farce
will not be the end of the Russian bourgeois revolution, but the beginning of a
complete democratic upheaval, which will kindle the fire of proletarian
revolutions all over the world. Only an uprising can guarantee that our
“United Landtag” will become the prelude to a constituent assembly
of a non Frankfort type, that the revolution will not end in a mere March 18
(1848), that we shall have not only a July 14 (1789), but also an August 10
(1792). Only an uprising, and not pledges obtained from theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague members, can be a surety that from the ranks of
the latter there will emerge individual Johann Jacobys,[5]who,
finally disgusted by the loathsomeness of the Golovin’s cringing and fawning,
will at the last minute march in the ranks of the proletariat and the peasantry
to fight for the revolution.

[1]Foreign papers of September21 (N. S.) reported from St. Peters burg
that the Bureau of the Zemstvo Congress had received many withdrawals from
participation in the September 25 Congress on the ground thatits
programme had been considerably curtailed by the government.We cannot
vouch for the accuracy of this information, but even if it is only a
rumour, it undoubtedly confirms our views on the significance of the
negotiations between Golovin and Durnovo.—Lenin

[2]Die Vossische Zeitung—a moderate liberal
newspaper published in Berlin between 1704 and 1934.

[3]Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre-Auguste(1807-1874)—French politician, representative of the petty-bourgeois
democrats.

[4]Cavaignac, Louis-Eugène— French general;
Minister for War in the provisional government following the February revolution
of 1848. During the June days of 1848, he was in charge of the suppression of
the Paris workers’ uprising.

Thiers,Louis-Adolphe— French bourgeois politician and bitter
enemy of the working class. In 1871 he was head of the government and displayed
great brutality in putting down the uprising of the Paris Communards.

[5]Jacoby, Johann(1805-1877)—German bourgeois democrat,
participant  in the revolution of 1848. Became a Social-Democrat after the
Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.